Bronwyn
Unapoligetically Republican
HR1 failed.We'll see what flies.
HR1 failed.We'll see what flies.
Because regardless of the flavor of democracy, you Trumpist want to throw it all in the garbage purely on the lies and, for the sake of, your cult leader and to preserve the lower levels of the leadership .Then why did you bring it up?
It should be the charter for the new agency, I suggested.HR1 failed.
Get a clue! We are (obviously) the ones who are attempting to defend the political system as designed by the USA founding fathers. You radicals are the ones trying to remake it in the image of Cuba, Venezueala and the USSR. That kind of makes you bozos the "insurrectionists" here...Because regardless of the flavor of democracy, you Trumpist want to throw it all in the garbage purely on the lies and, for the sake of, your cult leader and to preserve the lower levels of the leadership .
No, you're just trying to recreate the conditions in all of those countries before they had revolutions. You want juntas and cult of personality govt propped up by foreign intervention and manipulation.Get a clue! We are (obviously) the ones who are attempting to defend the political system as designed by the USA founding fathers. You radicals are the ones trying to remake it in the image of Cuba, Venezueala and the USSR. That kind of makes you bozos the "insurrectionists" here...
Hello! We aren't the ones claiming we need to "fundamentally transform" America:No, you're just trying to recreate the conditions in all of those countries before they had revolutions. You want juntas and cult of personality govt propped up by foreign intervention and manipulation.
You proved you had turned your backs on democracy on Nov 3rd, and since then you have done all you can to validate that truth.
Yes, a quote from 13 yrs ago.Hello! We aren't the ones claiming we need to "fundamentally transform" America:
obama quote fundamentally transform - Bing
You lose (again)..
The first time since the civil war that one party held up a nomination purely for political reasons....Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a democratic majority.There is no requirement to bring anything or anyone to "a vote". The Constitution simply requires the "consent" of the Senate. The entire majority of the judiciary committee, who holds hearings, unanimously rejected his nomination and declined hearings. There were 52 senators who came out and publicly supported no hearings. Garland didn't have the consent of the Senate.
Around and around we go. Edited
Edited.
Figures you'd think preventing unreasonable rules being imposed on voters around the country is an attempt to take over the right to vote....You'd have made the same claim when the democrats passed the 1964 civil rights act or subsequent legislation to prevent poll taxes or poll tests.Sorry but that crap didn't fly. The democrat attempt to take over voting rights got flushed as it should have been.
Says the people who 6 months ago declared the filibuster as necessary for democracy and used it repeatedly but who now say it's anti-democacy.Because regardless of the flavor of democracy, you Trumpist want to throw it all in the garbage purely on the lies and, for the sake of, your cult leader and to preserve the lower levels of the leadership .
Ever heard of Robert Bork? Did you see what Dems tried with Kavanaugh? Your lies are horrendous. The sign of true evil.The first time since the civil war that one party held up a nomination purely for political reasons....Clarence Thomas was confirmed
There is a huge difference between "holding up the nomination" and denying it in a vote.Ever heard of Robert Bork? Did you see what Dems tried with Kavanaugh? Your lies are horrendous. The sign of true evil.
The only thing unreasonable is allowing the cheating that democrats do to win. Allowing illegals to vote is not reasonable. Claiming black people aren't smart enough to obtain ID os not reasonable in todays day and age.Figures you'd think preventing unreasonable rules being imposed on voters around the country is an attempt to take over the right to vote....You'd have made the same claim when the democrats passed the 1964 civil rights act or subsequent legislation to prevent poll taxes or poll tests.
What is unreasonable is for you to continue to make this shit up in the hopes of persuading anyone that you know WTF you are talking about.The only thing unreasonable is allowing the cheating that democrats do to win. Allowing illegals to vote is not reasonable. Claiming black people aren't smart enough to obtain ID os not reasonable in todays day and age.
Why lie? There was nothing in HR1 to allow non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections.They should bring their own water. States control the voting hours. Filibuster has nothing to do with voting rights, HR1 had the provision to allow illegals to vote, liberals claim voting laws suppress black voters. Why do you spin like a top trying to convince people that liberal lunacy is acceptable?
Laws are in place. Why do you lie? Restricting mail in ballots to those who request them is not making it harder at all. So only Blacks go to church on Sunday mornings? Waiting in line is a fact of life. Get used to it.Why lie? There was nothing in HR1 to allow non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections.
The rule about no voting on Sunday mornings is aimed at the efforts at black churches to bring church goers to the polls.
"they should bring their own water"....WTF. What does handing water to a person in line mean to prevent free and fair elections? It is typically poor areas that have long lines at the polls. Just like restricting mail in ballots is meant to make it harder for people who cannot take time off to vote or those who rely on public transportation.
The Pews to the Polls effort was unique to black churches.Laws are in place. Why do you lie? Restricting mail in ballots to those who request them is not making it harder at all. So only Blacks go to church on Sunday mornings? Waiting in line is a fact of life. Get used to it.